Of course, oil isn't energy positive either.
Okay, sure it's energy positive from the time we extract it from the ground, but any fair consideration needs to take into account the amount of energy that, once upon a time, was required to create that oil, since essentially what we're required to do is replace the whole supply chain (or, wait a few hundred thousand years -- or more! -- for the supply chain to replenish the stocks we've taken).
The bonus is that waiting several hundred thousand years for the fuel supply to renew itself isn't necessary with the other energy-negative part-solutions.
Oh, and converting a standard four-stroke petrol engine to run on ethanol is not that hard, either -- as proven by a recent entry of a 1925 Austin in the Darwin to Adelaide Panasonic World Solar Challenge. Bigger carburetor jets (or similar adjustments in a fuel injected vehicle), cylinder head lubricant (probably not necessary on most unleaded vehicles), and some timing adjustments are about the mix of it, and come to think of it EFI systems could be designed to handle such adjustments mostly automatically.
why am I still seeing the page? And not the "correct" one on each reload?
Specifically, the message now says the following:
Yes, attacking spammers is wrong, you know this, you shouldn't be doing it. Your ip address and request have been logged and will be reported to your ISP for further action.
Also, note: This machine is not hacked, this page is returned for EVERY request. Thanks for noticing though.
Given the somewhat real cost of trojans, and the average home user not needing a "real" IP, why not provide all users with a NAT address by default, and do the firewalling at the ISP level - by default?
I dunno, but I think making users either pay more (or better still, prove they're running a good firewall and/or otherwise protecting themselves) to get a real, unfirewalled, IP address might go a long way to mitigating the problem.
A four cylinder powerplant typically uses less fuel than an eight cylinder one, everything else being close to equal. That said, eight cylinder powerplants also drag cars along at a quicker pace, so you do get _something_ for your money...
So yeah, in the case of that, you are paying more for fuel. It's just not in the per-gallon metric; it's in the per-mile metric.
... and have never, ever, seen this problem - and we do push these screens pretty much as hard as you'd want to (it's an aircraft command and control environment). Using either DVI or analogue signals, coming out of Dell hardware (my employer's preferred supplier).
Might be something 2001-specific, but from the description given, that sounds like an issue I'd peg on something else, not on the display.
That almost reminds me of a quote (from a.s.r, repeated many times over on many different sites) related to reannual wine: rebooting in response to the crash you'll have later on.:-)
There's a rule that's heard a lot on university campuses here (AU), and I'm sure it goes the same everywhere. I apologise in advance to any ladies who might be reading; or substitute the fourth word for one of your own choosing.:-)
If it has tits or wheels, it's bound to be trouble and money.
Bitter experience tells me this is all too often true. However, the alternative is not so palatable...
Australian bureaucracies -- doubtless, others worldwide, too -- take about two to three years to come to a decision. It's actually a really smart move on the part of their decision-makers to start the decision-making process about two to three years early, since that's about how long it takes them to make the decision.
Heck, speaking with first-hand experience, I can plainly state that some places didn't upgrade to Windows NT until Windows 2000 had come out. And have only recently gone to Windows 2000.
Of course, even with spending the next few years evaluating the unevaluable (an unreleased OS), that'd come up when they'd finally gotten to making a decision, which in turn means the evaluation would be thrown out, and restarted at point zero.
... and people wonder where Australian tax dollars go.:-)
... I do so commercially, insofar as I have and will this year make money indirectly through my use of Linux...
... and I have no intent whatsoever of paying a cent to SCO for these licenses.
For a start, they can take their complaint up with my vendor, with whom I have a commercial agreement (yes, I'm one of those people who actually bought support. Call me crazy.).
No big deal, here, so far. I'm sure anyone with common sense feels the same way about SCO's ramblings, and as such there's nothing "special" about my statement.
However, I, for one, welcome any invoice(s) SCO might send me (after deobfuscating my email address, of course). Threats of legal action, if they deem it necessary, are fine, not that they'd do that, now, would they?
I expect exactly as much response from me posting this email address here as I managed to get from them when I asked them what the story was with licensing in AU -- in the context of the Australian Trade Practices Act; absolutely none. Even if SCO were technically clued enough to browse Slashdot, they haven't the balls to actually, you know, try their claims on here in Australia. For a start, I'm sure they know how our competition watchdog feels about misrepresentation -- or, indeed, "accidental" misrepresentation...
Come on, SCO, I'd love to be able to fax a copy of any invoice to the ACCC. They'd love to hear from me, too, I'm sure.
How easy is it to write an iSync conduit? I haven't been able to find anything on the iSync side -- I've been trying to work out if it's even remotely possible to make a 6310i talk nice to iSync.
Firebird doesn't have an installer, it just runs out of the directory you extract it to - unless your company has some really obscure and complex policies in place it should work fine in your OE.
Yup, aware of that. Unfortunately the group policies in place are "good enough" to prevent it Just Working, and while it doesn't take too long to get around those, it's simply not worth the hassle. That, and having seen the IT dept follow through on their threats of termination in the past, I don't really feel like pushing my luck.
I just do what I need to at work, and the rest of my browsing, banking etc can wait `till I'm at home.
The trouble starts when you get an email purportedly from, say your bank, telling you to please go and "update your details."
People click it -- which that particular bank tells you not to do, since they make it a policy of sending material regarding accounts of any kind, out on paper only -- and enter their details. Whee, within a day their accounts are empty.
Sure, 99.99% of the time, clicking links is harmless. Heck, that's what they're there for. It's the remaining 0.01% of the time which poses the problem, and it was indeed that 0.01% of the time I was referring to.
I can only assume your IT department is a bunch of brainwashed MSCE graduates.
Close. Replace "MCSE graduates" with "MS apologists", and for the most part, you've got it spot on. Some of them do have MCSEs, a few more have MCSAs, but by and large, they're "surviving" on their experience. Of Windows NT and 95 environments, largely -- we've only upgraded to Windows 2000 in recent history.
Our policy is the exact opposite: Mozilla only.
In my personal Utopia -- indeed, when or if I run my own company with more than just me as an employee -- I'll be happy to have a standard operating environment. However, said SOE would have at least two browsers, being the OS default if one exists, for whichever OS I happen to choose to run on, and a well used alternative; it'd then be up to the individuals using those computers to decide which they want. If they want a different one, fine -- but they must then support it. In the (admittedly unlikely) instance that I was giving an employee a Windows system, they would be informed of all this, and made aware that any problems induced by either browser are their own problem alone.
In my not-so-humble opinion, diversity is "better" than any fixed no-questions-asked policy. So for the same reasons I dislike being forced into using IE as my browser at work, I'd prefer not to have a choice of any browser as long as it was Mozilla.
In a large organisation, this is probably too hard to deal with, hence the more restrictive SOE. I can't understand why saying "this is the install we give you; you can install whatever you like as long as (a) you support it and (b) you don't break copyright law or any licensing issues" is so difficult, especially in a company primarily focused on engineering.
Then again, I refer back to my original statement about some people and their inability to comprehend that clicking unknown links is bad, and -- combined with some employees' propensity to blame anyone but themselves for a foulup -- perhaps there is a reason for an overly-restrictive SOE.
Send a note to whoever the IT head reports to, with references to the problem and solutions to it.
That would be the managing director of said company's national operations. Due to extreme twists of fate and some "very good" politicking on the part of our IT dept's manager, they've ended up at the top level of the organisation. For all that they don't seem to have much success at running a stable & reliable network with happy users and an open mind to change, they're incredibly good at making sure things go exactly the way they want them to.
In the past, attempts to change the policies and/or alter the SOE have been unsuccessful, even if a "must win" project or technical reason on a subproject requires it, and even if every trick on how to get the change you desire has been followed, simply because of this fact. For this reason and this reason alone, most of the major projects create their own "mini-IT-department" with it's own infrastructure, network, cabling, and computing equipment. Hardly efficient if you ask me.
Ultimately, because of this "system", IT even get off the hook for problems that are essentially of their own causing, such as major system outages caused by various worms, which had patches available literally months before the worm became known.
This is all a big ploy, by Microsoft, to prevent "their" customers clicking on links which might take them to competitors' products. Sneaky! It might even be patentable!
It's part of our IT department's standard operating environment to have MSIE as the only browser on Windows platforms. It's also part of their policy to prevent additional programs -- specifically including web browsers of any kind -- from being installed, and the penalty for doing so is not something I really feel like finding out. People have been fired for repeat violations.
Their reasoning? Security. Judging by the number of times in the past two months they've had overtime to do, and the amount of times they have to send out emails-which-get-deleted-without-further-reading on what not to do with a web browser, I suspect it's the security of their jobs they're trying to protect, but anyway...
So, instead, I sit and shake my head with wonder at all the people, particularly from the Management stream -- although I've seen for myself that engineers aren't immune -- who blindly click links without checking their content, who don't check for SSL, and so on and so forth. And, in two cases, get swindled out of cash because they believed an email supposedly from their bank...
ObRant: Why conceal this kind of knowledgebase article? Microsoft should have it in forty-foot-high letters of fire on their front page. No, more than that; it should be in every freaking news syndication everywhere for every single windows user to see and read, repeatedly, until they get the hint.
Then, and only then, can we honestly say that those who still don't do the "right" thing deserve it.
... PaulThurrott, the world's greatest (in a secondary sense, at least) Windows sympathizer.
I find it somewhat amusing that he harps on and on and on about the slightest little problem with any other platform -- particularly the mac -- but has almost completely ignored the latest couple of mail worms pestering his platform-of-choice.
I have far, far more bothersome issues to worry about between now and whenever WinFS comes out.
Let's see:
It isn't slated for release until late 2005, early 2006.
This suggests to me that what we're looking at in the current Longhorn builds is, in effect, early beta software.
Microsoft have a long track record of changing their software quite dramatically through the creation process -- a la NT5.
I don't particularly plan on upgrading to a Windows OS on my home systems if I can help it anyway. It'd have to have a hell of a lot of "must have" features before I'd consider doing so, since that would require an architectural switch for a lot of my equipment (Mac and Solaris to PC).
At work, the IT department can bother with issues involving security/spyware and so on. Of course, the IT department's past history suggests we'll be upgrading to Windows XP about the time that Longhorn is finally released, and that any worms/virii won't be of much concern to them...
No, I don't think Microsoft will produce a particularly stable or reliable OS, or at least, not one which is much more stable or reliable than what they've released to date. Doubtless there'll be improvements, and doubtless there'll be new features to exploit. There always is, and I dare say always will be.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't CIO stand for Career Is Over? Wouldn't that explain why so few end up as CEOs?
Of course, oil isn't energy positive either.
Okay, sure it's energy positive from the time we extract it from the ground, but any fair consideration needs to take into account the amount of energy that, once upon a time, was required to create that oil, since essentially what we're required to do is replace the whole supply chain (or, wait a few hundred thousand years -- or more! -- for the supply chain to replenish the stocks we've taken).
I'm led to believe that the figure is approximately 24 tonnes of plants to produce one litre of petrol as an end product. Considered this way, then ethanol, biodiesel or hydrogen are all far less energy negative.
The bonus is that waiting several hundred thousand years for the fuel supply to renew itself isn't necessary with the other energy-negative part-solutions.
Oh, and converting a standard four-stroke petrol engine to run on ethanol is not that hard, either -- as proven by a recent entry of a 1925 Austin in the Darwin to Adelaide Panasonic World Solar Challenge. Bigger carburetor jets (or similar adjustments in a fuel injected vehicle), cylinder head lubricant (probably not necessary on most unleaded vehicles), and some timing adjustments are about the mix of it, and come to think of it EFI systems could be designed to handle such adjustments mostly automatically.
I know this is the same kind of thing that you'd find on any column, but given the material, I just found it somewhat... apropos.
I do NOT want a CmdrTaco dupe to this story in particular.
Sorry. It was there.
Specifically, the message now says the following:
I dunno, but I think making users either pay more (or better still, prove they're running a good firewall and/or otherwise protecting themselves) to get a real, unfirewalled, IP address might go a long way to mitigating the problem.
A four cylinder powerplant typically uses less fuel than an eight cylinder one, everything else being close to equal. That said, eight cylinder powerplants also drag cars along at a quicker pace, so you do get _something_ for your money...
So yeah, in the case of that, you are paying more for fuel. It's just not in the per-gallon metric; it's in the per-mile metric.
Iain
... and have never, ever, seen this problem - and we do push these screens pretty much as hard as you'd want to (it's an aircraft command and control environment). Using either DVI or analogue signals, coming out of Dell hardware (my employer's preferred supplier).
Might be something 2001-specific, but from the description given, that sounds like an issue I'd peg on something else, not on the display.
Apologies, I'm sure, to Terry Pratchett.
Damn, I wish I had mod points ;)
Using that as a benchmark, then some dialects of BASIC suit you too then, eh? :-)
Sorry. Had to. It was there.
Heck, speaking with first-hand experience, I can plainly state that some places didn't upgrade to Windows NT until Windows 2000 had come out. And have only recently gone to Windows 2000.
Of course, even with spending the next few years evaluating the unevaluable (an unreleased OS), that'd come up when they'd finally gotten to making a decision, which in turn means the evaluation would be thrown out, and restarted at point zero.
For a start, they can take their complaint up with my vendor, with whom I have a commercial agreement (yes, I'm one of those people who actually bought support. Call me crazy.).
No big deal, here, so far. I'm sure anyone with common sense feels the same way about SCO's ramblings, and as such there's nothing "special" about my statement.
However, I, for one, welcome any invoice(s) SCO might send me (after deobfuscating my email address, of course). Threats of legal action, if they deem it necessary, are fine, not that they'd do that, now, would they?
I expect exactly as much response from me posting this email address here as I managed to get from them when I asked them what the story was with licensing in AU -- in the context of the Australian Trade Practices Act; absolutely none. Even if SCO were technically clued enough to browse Slashdot, they haven't the balls to actually, you know, try their claims on here in Australia. For a start, I'm sure they know how our competition watchdog feels about misrepresentation -- or, indeed, "accidental" misrepresentation...
Come on, SCO, I'd love to be able to fax a copy of any invoice to the ACCC. They'd love to hear from me, too, I'm sure.
How easy is it to write an iSync conduit? I haven't been able to find anything on the iSync side -- I've been trying to work out if it's even remotely possible to make a 6310i talk nice to iSync.
I just do what I need to at work, and the rest of my browsing, banking etc can wait `till I'm at home.
People click it -- which that particular bank tells you not to do, since they make it a policy of sending material regarding accounts of any kind, out on paper only -- and enter their details. Whee, within a day their accounts are empty.
Sure, 99.99% of the time, clicking links is harmless. Heck, that's what they're there for. It's the remaining 0.01% of the time which poses the problem, and it was indeed that 0.01% of the time I was referring to.
In my not-so-humble opinion, diversity is "better" than any fixed no-questions-asked policy. So for the same reasons I dislike being forced into using IE as my browser at work, I'd prefer not to have a choice of any browser as long as it was Mozilla.
In a large organisation, this is probably too hard to deal with, hence the more restrictive SOE. I can't understand why saying "this is the install we give you; you can install whatever you like as long as (a) you support it and (b) you don't break copyright law or any licensing issues" is so difficult, especially in a company primarily focused on engineering.
Then again, I refer back to my original statement about some people and their inability to comprehend that clicking unknown links is bad, and -- combined with some employees' propensity to blame anyone but themselves for a foulup -- perhaps there is a reason for an overly-restrictive SOE.
That would be the managing director of said company's national operations. Due to extreme twists of fate and some "very good" politicking on the part of our IT dept's manager, they've ended up at the top level of the organisation. For all that they don't seem to have much success at running a stable & reliable network with happy users and an open mind to change, they're incredibly good at making sure things go exactly the way they want them to.In the past, attempts to change the policies and/or alter the SOE have been unsuccessful, even if a "must win" project or technical reason on a subproject requires it, and even if every trick on how to get the change you desire has been followed, simply because of this fact. For this reason and this reason alone, most of the major projects create their own "mini-IT-department" with it's own infrastructure, network, cabling, and computing equipment. Hardly efficient if you ask me.
Ultimately, because of this "system", IT even get off the hook for problems that are essentially of their own causing, such as major system outages caused by various worms, which had patches available literally months before the worm became known.
This is all a big ploy, by Microsoft, to prevent "their" customers clicking on links which might take them to competitors' products. Sneaky! It might even be patentable!
What'll they think of next?
Their reasoning? Security. Judging by the number of times in the past two months they've had overtime to do, and the amount of times they have to send out emails-which-get-deleted-without-further-reading on what not to do with a web browser, I suspect it's the security of their jobs they're trying to protect, but anyway...
So, instead, I sit and shake my head with wonder at all the people, particularly from the Management stream -- although I've seen for myself that engineers aren't immune -- who blindly click links without checking their content, who don't check for SSL, and so on and so forth. And, in two cases, get swindled out of cash because they believed an email supposedly from their bank...
ObRant: Why conceal this kind of knowledgebase article? Microsoft should have it in forty-foot-high letters of fire on their front page. No, more than that; it should be in every freaking news syndication everywhere for every single windows user to see and read, repeatedly, until they get the hint.
Then, and only then, can we honestly say that those who still don't do the "right" thing deserve it.
I find it somewhat amusing that he harps on and on and on about the slightest little problem with any other platform -- particularly the mac -- but has almost completely ignored the latest couple of mail worms pestering his platform-of-choice.
Let's see:
- It isn't slated for release until late 2005, early 2006.
- This suggests to me that what we're looking at in the current Longhorn builds is, in effect, early beta software.
- Microsoft have a long track record of changing their software quite dramatically through the creation process -- a la NT5.
- I don't particularly plan on upgrading to a Windows OS on my home systems if I can help it anyway. It'd have to have a hell of a lot of "must have" features before I'd consider doing so, since that would require an architectural switch for a lot of my equipment (Mac and Solaris to PC).
- At work, the IT department can bother with issues involving security/spyware and so on. Of course, the IT department's past history suggests we'll be upgrading to Windows XP about the time that Longhorn is finally released, and that any worms/virii won't be of much concern to them...
No, I don't think Microsoft will produce a particularly stable or reliable OS, or at least, not one which is much more stable or reliable than what they've released to date. Doubtless there'll be improvements, and doubtless there'll be new features to exploit. There always is, and I dare say always will be.